Talk:Symphonic poems (Liszt)

Impressions

I was asked to comment on the state of this article; here are my impressions. Overall, I think much of the content that is present is pretty good, and may not need much more than copyediting and MOS-related things.

Possible GA issues

These should probably be addressed before going to GA.

• The lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD; it is not a summary of the main points of the article (composition process, written prefaces, other innovations not mentioned). The list of works should be moved to the body.
• The sections on Liszt's composition style are interesting; however, "New bottles", although cute, is not really an encyclopedic heading, and "Creative experiment" is probably better termed "Composition process" or similar.
• It should be clearer that Liszt was the actual originator of the term "symphonic poem" -- instead of "Liszt first used", something like "Liszt coined the term". (Unless it's not true, of course, in which case earlier uses should be mentioned.)
• There are some minor MOS issues -- places using dashes that call for endashes is common. Copyediting wouldn't hurt, but content-related work should precede that.
• I'd put File:Wilhelm von Kaulbach 001.jpg in the article.

Other issues

These are factual concerns that might not stop a GA review, but are worth mentioning.

• I expected to get some indication of how the form developed (or appeared to develop) over time; what differentiates Orpheus stylistically from Hamlet and Les Preludes. This information may or may not be present; it would require close reading to discern it. (I understand this may be complicated by Liszt's tendency to revise; but this ought to be a tractable problem.)
• The reception section deals mainly with the musicological reaction (i.e. by Liszt's peers and critics). Some words about audience reaction ought to be included.
• The article may benefit from a brief summary on each poem: "program" description, composition date(s), first performance, reception. I realize this may add notable length to the article; feel free to push back on this point.

It's a good piece of work; keep it up! Magic♪piano 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Symphonic Poems (Liszt)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Check back soon for a full review! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

GA pass

OK, the article looks great! I have no concerns really, except for a few MOS-related issues that I personally fixed myself. I will pass this article, for it is nicely written, sourced, and a great article. Great job! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"inventing"?

New Grove, 2001, Volume Nine, page 182: list of works of Franck includes the following entry:

Ce qu'on entend sur la montagne, sym. poem c1845-7

before Liszt's version. Peter jackson (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please look under the France section of Symphonic poem. You'll see the Franck piece is mentioned there. Howevr, it is mentioned as an orchestral piece and not specifically as a symphonic poem. Both this and the fact Liszt invented the symphonic poem are cited in the New Grove, 1980 (MacDonald, "Symphonic poem", 18:429 for Liszt, 18:431 for Franck). The same article is reprinted in the 2001 edition. Jonyungk (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This might be a case of post-analysis. It might be that Franck composed a piece that is much later analysed to be a symphonic poem; nonetheless Franck never claimed to have invented the genre (perhaps he himself did not consider it a "full" symphonic poem). I believe p. 206 (or somewhere around there depending on which version you are reading) of New Grove mentions this: "The point is that to him the symphonic poem meant a certain frame of mind in the composer. He laid no claim to the origination ...". There seems to be some books that touch on this:

• Page 105 of Joel Flegler's Fanfare states that Carl de Nys claims Ce qu'on entend sur la montagne as the "first symphonic poem" and that Franck's work was unpublished and unperformed.[1]
• Page 103 of Arthur Henry Fox Strangways' Music & Letters points out that "It is salutary to be reminded that Franck all but preceded Liszt in the invention of the symphonic poem, and that in 'Ce qu'on entend sur la montagne ...".[2]

However, Liszt is the man who coined the term "symphonic poem" and is championed by all (including Franck) as the inventor of the genre (if not the proliferator).[3][4][5][6] In a manner of speaking, Franck "stumbled" onto the genre but Liszt defined the steps to creation of and nature of the symphonic work. Liszt is acknowledged as the man who created "symphonic poem" but several historians are pointing out that the first symphonic poem did not come from Liszt. Perhaps this detail (either footnote or main body text) should be in the article (using better and updated sources) to clarify the matter? Jappalang (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's roughly what I was getting at. There seems to be some disagreement among experts, so NPOV requires mentioning the different views. On the question of Franck's acknowledgment of Liszt as inventor, I'd point out that Darwin acknowledged Patrick Matthew as having published the same theory of the origin of species in 1831, but little notice is usually taken of this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we say that Franck wrote the first work now regarded as a symphonic poem, but Liszt coined the term. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what is now in the reference note for the section in question: "French composer César Franck had written an orchestral piece based on Victor Hugo's poem Ce qu'on entend sur le montagne before Liszt did so himself as his first numbered symphonic poem. However, Liszt is still credited as having invented the symphonic poem genre. MacDonald, New Grove (1980), 18:429, 431." Jonyungk (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't say Franck's work is (sometimes?) regarded as an SP. Peter jackson (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What if I add, "Franck's work is now considered by some music historians to be the first symphonic poem, though Liszt was the one who actually coined the term" or somethng along these lines? The only thing is, this has to be fully cited to go into the article. We have "'Cesar Franck', New Grove (2001), 9:182." What we are missing is the name of the author of the list of works of Franck for that entry. Jonyungk (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I found the name—Metzelaar. So this is what we have: "French composer César Franck had written an orchestral piece based on Victor Hugo's poem Ce qu'on entend sur le montagne between 1845 and 1847, before Liszt did so himself as his first numbered symphonic poem. Franck's work is now considered by some music historians to be the first symphonic poem. However, Liszt is still generally credited as having invented the symphonic poem genre. MacDonald, New Grove (1980), 18:429, 431; Metzelaar, New Grove (2001), 9:182." Jonyungk (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One further point. How many people read footnotes? They're mainly just citing sources. I don't think that's adequate for correcting misleading statements in the main text. Peter jackson (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Take another look at the main text. Jonyungk (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks great. Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Should the article mention

1. that these aren't much used (at least in the English-speaking world)
2. whether Liszt was responsible for them?

Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is, with all due respect to him as a music critic, Harold C Schonberg an accepted authority on the impact of the industrial revolution on 'lifestyle'? There's been a continued debate on the issue which goes back beyond Engels, to Owen and before, and that's just in English. Where does Schonberg fit in to it?93.96.231.215 (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Schonberg fits into it by how the industrial revolution affected the music scene, especially on how a growing and increasingly prosperous middle class helped bring public concerts into play. The footnotes show four other authors cited in that section. To them I've added Salmi and Cay, both cultural historians who have specialized on 19th-century Europe. Cay's information especially seems to dovetail with Schonberg's. Hopefully, this might settle any qualms.Jonyungk (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Liszt the anglophone?

Liszt first used the term "symphonic poem" in public at a concert in Weimar on April 19, 1854 to describe Tasso. Five days later, he used the term "poèmes symphoniques" in a letter to Hans von Bülow to describe Les preludes and Orpheus.

This reads very much as if the actual verbatim expression he used was the English-language "symphonic poem". But since he was speaking at a concert in Weimar, and presumably addressing mainly Germans, would he not have used the German term "Sinfonische Dichtung"? If this is the case, we need to make it clear that our term "symphonic poem" is a translation into English of the German term that Liszt actually coined. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll check this out, Jack, since the article's up for review. Since the source is Walker, my guess is that the info is accurate.Jonyungk (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)